No surprise.

DOGMAN

I'm sure Jesus loves violence in his name.

"One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments"
No need to apologies for saying something thats true. What ever happened to "turn the other cheek". Christian my ass.

"Professor Assaulted by Intelligent Designers" Well, it just couldn't have been Yves St. Laurent.

There you have it! Proof these cretins are animals descendent from apes!~

We need God to start intelligently re-designing some of these christian thugs.

What kind of a 3 year old beats up a professor because he had a different idea? I wouldn't even beat ward churchills fat ass. Why bludgeon what can be ignored and ridiculed?

The real irony here is that these thugs were attempting to defend a religion that preaches tolerance and love. They need to read the bible more carefully.

Coco- LOL. it all makes sense now... The professor stole their bananas.

"What kind of a 3 year old beats up a professor because he had a different idea?"
Same kind of guys who were opposed to "jewish science" in Germany in the 1930s?

The other side is more subtle. If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired.

Not that I'm choosing sides, but there is a great deal of [i]ideological cleansing[/i] going on in what was once "Higher" education.

"If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired."

Got any information to back up this statement?
I didn't think so.

"If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired."

OK, Paleo, now you can start moving your money (one stack at a time) to where you've put your mouth. Information, please. Non-anecdotal would be better than, "I had a friend who said s/he believed in (pick the divinity of your personal preference) and there was a thorough going over the case and it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the reason s/he didn't get the job was because s/he believed in (pick the divinity of your choice)." Thanks.

Come on girls, leave paleocon alone, he has desert lag.
Paleo,
Why do you need two screen names? Do you have split personalities? When you're feeling like a racist you choose Paleo and when you are feeling really dumb you choose "Expectingreign"?
I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles. My only conclusion is that the poster is embarrassed of their views so they change identities, but even that is a stretch because we are all anonymous anyway.

Sounds like an Australopithecus attack --

H

I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles.

Ditto. Why be stupid in two places when it takes less effort to do it in one? :)

I think some people here use name B to compliment name A. Weird.

Naaa
That was KansasPatheticus.
Mentally identical to IslamicusStupidius, but they use different drugs.

Yeah, the Cro Magnums were all at the strip club when the attack occured

H

Got any information to back up this statement?
I didn't think so.

Posted by rastacyborg at 2005-12-06 09:45 AM | Reply

"Mirecki told the student newspaper, The University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth."

Perhaps he can use the tooth to create Son of Nebraska Man?

Just a helpful suggestion...

H

RCADE- I noticed that the deleted comments sections appears to NOT list who has been banned and for how long.

Just not banning anyone lately? Hard to believe given that half a dozen Rex posts in a row are there.

That only reflects temporary suspensions. Users who are banned permanently are listed as 'visitor' on their user pages.

"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Many of the claims of the PC crowd are based on mere proportions as proof of discrimination"

Bullshit.

I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles. My only conclusion is that the poster is embarrassed of their views so they change identities, but even that is a stretch because we are all anonymous anyway.

Posted by 101chairborne at 2005-12-06 09:53 AM | Reply

Paleo, you ust caled 101 a liberal?

I do believe them's fightin' words.

Bullshit.

Posted by revdarko at 2005-12-06 10:07 AM | Reply

Paleocon,

I wouldn't really accept a high percentage of athiests as proof, unless we're talking really high like 90%. I would consider documented legal action against universities over discriminatory hiring practices, especially in the case that the university loses.

So, all I need to do is show that there is a higher percentage of Atheists among college professors than in the general population, right?

Show it.

But, it is true, there is a lower percentage of fundis among college professors than in the general population.

"Funny how there are demands of "proof" when I express my common-sense views"

Paleo, "common-sense views" are often the same as "conventional wisdom," and neither is necessarily equivalent to "facts," "truth," or "proof."

Please, easy on the goosing.

On a different note...Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many Evolution frauds? If Evolution really occured there should be massive amounts of obvious evidence out there. So where is it?

Horace

The Nazis believed God was on their side too. So do the Iranians, the Palestinians and every terrorist on the planet. These Christains are terrorists. That was a terrorist attack.

I can tell you that if someone walked in my office in response to a job opening and told me they were an atheist, I would not hire them.

I do not ask job applicants in interview what their religious beliefs are. But if an atheist freely offers their beliefs; I don't want them around no matter how qualified they are.

"There is a lower percentage of fundis among college professors than in the general population."

Two responses come to mind:

There is a lower percentage of morons among college professors than in the general population.

Or

Depends on the College.
Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, etc.

"I wouldn't really accept a high percentage of athiests as proof, unless we're talking really high like 90%."

But this does support the theory that atheists are smarter than Xtians. I think those rednecks were just jealous.

There are plenty of idiot savants with the moniker of professor.

"So where is it?"

It's called the fossil record.
There are hundreds of thousands of specimens. Try to get out more.

The Nazis were self-conscious pagans, Buffy. While everyone knows they hated the Jews, it is a fact that the Christians were next on the list. Hitler could not stand to have anyone committed to a source of authority outside the Reich.

Horace

If Evolution really occured there should be massive amounts of obvious evidence out there. So where is it?

Umm, in science books?

Fewer Biblethumpers in acadamia simply because they are not that smart.

"Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many Evolution frauds? ...Posted by Horace"

Good question, although it does immediately bring to mind another: Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many religion frauds?

(Answer: yes)

Nice fantasy there, Horace.
Gott Mit Uns, baby!!

I do believe it is illegal to ask on employment applications or during interviews, the religious views of the applicant. I think employers would get their ass sued off for asking such questions. I think paleocons "common sense" is peculiar to himself.

The fact that most college professors are atheists is not proven, but if it were it would just show that the most educated and intelligent people on the planet are atheists.

I wouldn't claim most college profs are atheists.

OK ZAT, since you know so much: If there are so many proofs of Evolution, why have there been so many outright falsifications? Why not take one of the 'hundreds of thousands of specimens' and use them? No reason to falsify what is apparently all around us -- correct?

You have to admit if what you are saying is true then falsifying even one makes no sense! The fakes themselves testify to the LACK of evidence. Can't you see that? Or are you too blinded by the religion called Evolution?

In other words, there are not hundreds of thousands of proofs -- just that many examples of animals who lived and died.

The problem with Evolutionists is that so many of you don't know the theory well enough to even realize what would stand for proof and what wouldn't.

No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?

Please wake up and pull off the blinders, Zat!

Horace

Unbelieveable.
I'm going to sleep.

"Gott Mit Uns"

"God With Us"
Engraved, at Hitler's request, on the belt buckles of the German army.

Why were Niceville & 2ndCrusade in Kansas?

Most of the fakes were made to make money or get notoriety.

Facts are the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Facts are the earth is billions of years old and the universe is billions of years older than the earth. Those facts alone make the bible false.

Nothing stays the same--everything changes--nothing is permanent. Life adapts--evolution is common sense. Change or die.

Why were Niceville & 2ndCrusade in Kansas?

Posted by briwo at 2005-12-06 10:39 AM | Reply


Gee thanks for being a Kansan I want You to know that ruined My appetite for today Thanks.

Larry

Gee thanks for being a Kansan I want You to know that ruined My appetite for today Thanks.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2005-12-06 10:42 AM | Reply

Hookers everywhere can rest easy for at least a couple of days...So can grocery stores.

Box Itch,

can tell you that if someone walked in my office in response to a job opening and told me they were an atheist, I would not hire them.

That's unamerican. Granted it's retarded for the guy to bring it up during an interview. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

"I do believe it is illegal to ask on employment applications or during interviews, the religious views of the applicant."

Don't know about private universities, but I suspect the civil rights laws apply to them as well (?!). A public university that asked applicants about their religious views would get its collective ass sued for mucho dinero. You can't ask on applications or during interviews about: religion, sexual orientation, number of kids, wives/husbands, why they want to leave where they are, why they want to come to wherever you are, none of that stuff...and absolutely nada about religion and political affiliation. Maybe that's why some of the Cons applying for jobs keep shouting their views from the rooftops, so they can claim "discrimination" in cases where the only discrimination at work is the choice not to hire another academic moron.

Fuck You 101Chairborne You are a useless sack of shit You know that.

Larry

"No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?"

Horace - I think it's quite reasonable to explain this by saying you are an idiot. You claim that there are many fakes, when this is not the case. There are a FEW examples of people who fabricated pre-homo sapiens remains in an attempt to gain notoriety for themsleves, not to fill your imaginary holes in the fossil record. As in a jigsaw puzzle, we use the known pieces of fossil evidence and their context to predict the "picture" of evolution before all the pieces are in place. I think it's safe to say that even when viewing a partially completed jigsaw puzzle, we can get a pretty good idea of what the completed puzzle looks like. Same goes for evolution. If you can't live with this, I suggest you start praying to your god for a quick end.

Larry,
Boy that didn't take long! Most people on diets don't get cranky for at least one day.
BTW, I just sold all of my Kansas based fast food stocks!

"No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?"

That would explain religion allright.

There are tons of fossil evidence;
Literally; Including the common ancestors of apes and humans.

Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him.

Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him.

Naw, Zat, he's got a piece of the True Cross, Jesus' blood and ashes from Moses' burnt bush in an amulet around his neck to protect him.
And a Jesus bobble-head on the dash of his pickup truck.

"Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him."

Yeah, but he'll be going to that creationist/Impossible design museum, so the skeleton will be a fake. Probably made out of popsicle sticks and those little bread wafer thingys.

Buffy, I have actually spent time reasearching the topic of nazi religion as opposed to getting all my info from Liberal blogs and bathroom walls.

The Nazis were busy creating a so-called "Volk" Religion, ie 'people's' -- that recapitualted the Nordic theories of the gods. In fact, Hitler erected gigantic buidlings to use as worship centers for this reborn faith. Mass meetings were held in these places, and it could best be described as neo-pagan.

Like all politicians, Hitler co-opted the symbology of religions like Catholicism and Protesetantism to help draw the credulous. But Hitler was vociferously opposed to use of the Bible as a sourcebook.

If Hitler was so Christian, how do you explain the Bonhoffer phenomenon?

The groups targetted by the Nazis were Jews, Homosexuals (after Kristalnacht), Gypsys, Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Protestants, Thespians, the Physically Deformed or Unsound, etc.

The religious sentiments of the Fuhrer were influenced by such thinkers as Nieztche, Hegel and Wagner. None of these men were fundamentally or ideologically Christian. Nietztche probably had the most influence, and Hitler was on an Ubermansch (Neitzchean Superman) quest of destroying all past religions and creating a new German super religion that superceded all previous belief systems.

Aryan mysticism was the religion. It was crackpot, of course, but Hitler was trying to build up a country that was 100% German in all of its ideals and influences.

Hitler's own religious sentiments were occult oriented. He was deeply influenced by Guido von List who was a mystic of the type associated with Theosophy and the Golden Dawn. In fact, Rudolf Hess reported while spending 9 months in Landsberg prison for sedition with Hitler, Adolf frequently went into the corner to confer with dark powers. Hitler was certainly an occultic mystic at heart.

Ironically, the one religion that was sympatico with the Nazis was islam, especially in the quest to rid the world of Jewry. This has been well documented.

Horace

Don-ohrea, the first move by any Evolutionist in response to the non-Evolutionist is to claim they are an Idiot, Moron, Retard, Fool, etc. This is what I believe is called claiming 'Higher Ground.' I guess there is some profound psychological transformation that occurs after identifying your opponent as mentally defective. But I do salute your name calling. Well done, Don!

Now then, I can say to everyone else -- just because someone disagrees with your ideas, it doen't mean they are mad, bad or dangerous to know! (I am not claiming Byron in my camp, btw) What if every single iconoclast in human history had been immediately smothered, stabbed, immolated, etc.? Maybe it would be Don's kind of world, but not mine. We'd still be arguing over who gets the last deer leg over the cave fire.

But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man? What about Ernest Haekel's faked drawings? How about the out-of-sync horse family that is mispresented? What about the famous 'Pepper Moths' and how that 'experiment' was falsified? Etc, etc.

Don, personal insults aside your argument doesn't achieve too much outside of boasting. Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?

Horace

But this does support the theory that atheists are smarter than Xtians. I think those rednecks were just jealous.

Posted by dontardo at 2005-12-06 10:18 AM | Reply

"Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?"

One's as good as another. Except that neither seems to be pickng up the phone.

"But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man?"

That's the best you can do?

What about the entire fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, archaeology, geology, physics and astronomy?

Another one using computers claiming science is bogus. Horace, why call you names? You demonstrate your gross ignorance constantly.

Why do I get the feeling that "Intelligent Design Adherents"(I can't possibly imply they're Intelligent) Should be caged? Could it be because sooo many of them are violent animals?

Horace,

Take some advice from an ally, your Uncle Lurchy. RUN! You really pissed the assertive atheist, neo-lib trolls off with that one.

You will be vilified, bashed and beaten. Your IP will be blocked and your type-key suspended for at least three days.

I will pray for you.

Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?

Great line though! Can I use it in the future? I will give you proper credit.

I don't mind receiving a good going over. But I have to admit I am AMAZED at how quickly Evolutionists start the cheapshots.

I have been reading up on the anti-Evo's books since this latest brouhaha started. I bought 6 books at once to better digest their ideas -- about a month ago. They have some very well put together critiques of Darwin & Co., but when I read the reviews by the Evos, half or three quarters is just personal vitriol and attack. I was surprised the defense wasn't better organized or spirited.

Makes you think the anti-Evo's must be onto something!!

Horace

Ok, Ok...I repent.

In fact, to prove I understand Evolution, I will now buy a Chihuahuah & a Great Dane & also allow fruitflies to take over my kitchen unmolested!

Yours in sackcloth & ashes

Horace

"But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man?"

Amazing. You've managed to prove my point that you're limited to a few examples where the goal was personal acclaim, not the advancement of science. Apparently you have a hard time getting past these obviously frauds and seeing the bigger picture. You might be a literate historian (as evidenced by your earlier posts), but you're not much of a scientist. The fact that someone fakes evidence to support a theory doesn't make the theory any less valid. If it did your god would have been done in by the virgen Mary appearing via tortilla, grilled cheese sandwich, dirty window, etc. The evidence supporting evolution is out there, but like with any puzzle, you have to actually look at the pieces to put it together. You obviously don't care to do this, and only choose to accept points that validate your outdated beliefs in imaginary beings. I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you by calling out your ignorance with respect to evolution, but as a representative of the scietific community I'm gotten a little tired of creationalist BS, and would prefer if you keep it in church.

The beating the professor got makes me glad there are thousands of miles of Internet between us and the Rightwing Fundamentalists on this site.

I rarely feel it's the fault of the victim upon whom a violent crime is perpetrated. But in the case of this professor, I can't help but think he made himself an "attractive nuisance" by sending out e-mails belittling fundies.

Nothing justifies violence. And there's freedom of speech. But in this case, he kind of asked for trouble, don't you think? He must have had a lapse of memory about how deeply buried in the Bible Belt Kansas is.

"half or three quarters is just personal vitriol and attack."

If you call dissecting and refuting someone's poorly established, unverifiable argument vitriol, then you're right. Despite your readings, it's fairly obvious that you don't have a firm grip on science. This may explain why you prefer the historical explanation of things.

PeaNUT,
I have seen plenty of Leftwingers here threaten physical violence. Usually towards me. Justsomepud, Alexandrite, Punchyourface, AK47/The Truth, and today some clown in another thread threatened Boaz.
How many rightwing threats have you seen via this site?

Also, the tit for a tat (what is a tat and how do I get one?) crowd failed to mention the numerous "assaults" by the leftwingers. I suppose that the pie throwing and property damage and assaults by them are just as reprehensible?

"I suppose that the pie throwing and property damage and assaults by them are just as reprehensible?"

You've got to admit pie throwing is pretty funny.

Actually Don, your 'Virgin Mary Taco' may be the great Eureka! moment of your life. Shall I subtly suggest a call to Taco Bell world headquarters?

Don, didn't your Momma teach you not to call other people names? It is mystifying to me that a group that seems to crave respect and legitimacy acts like such, for lack of a better term, Troglydites. How does this aid science?

You are a 'scientist'? If you are a real research scientist working in the field of Evolutionary study, you will realize that what I am claiming is true. There are HUGE HOLES in Evolution that have not gotten smaller since Darwin, but more massive.

The reason there has to be fraudulently created 'missing-links' is there are no missing links that have ever been clearly discovered or identified. On a second point that proves the first, the psychological explanation as to why Evolutionists attack the anti-E's is that they KNOW there are many problems with the theory & the have NO ANSWERS to them.

Paul Feyerabend was a brilliant philisopher of science who claimed that today's science runs off of myths, not unlike that of Promethues creating fire, etc. Yes, of course we know much more than the Greeks, but there is still a place where knowledge stops and we are not sure of what the answers are. Therefore we need myths to create the illusion of the sufficiency of science.

Evolution is in trouble because it claims to have more facts, better theories and truer information than rival claims -- BUT IT DOESN'T!!
HORACE

Hans,
You strike me as a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs.

Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy.

"...lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs."

Merry Christmas to you as well, my good friend Stopthebox_Itch.

Hans

"Hans,
You strike me as a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs.

Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 12:10 PM | Reply"

YOWZA! And all that deeply penetrating, uncannily insightful analysis just over an electrical mojo line! Sheeeeeit! Imagine what Itchy could do if he lived in Real Life?

Merry Christmas to you, Hans.

Keep Christ in Christmas. He is the reason for the season.

Old Fart Sailor,

What part of my life don't you think is real?

I find it hard to believe that the right can sit there and accuse the left of sympathy for the terrorists when it's their kind that goes out an does the terrorizing.

They didn't want the class taught, they terrorized somebody and got their way. I guess because of the religous right, the terrorists did win.

"BUT IT DOESN'T!!"

Poor misguided Horace. ID/creationism isn't attacked because of flaws with evolution, it's attacked because it is total bullshit. This is the fundies first defense: imaginary beings exist because evolution is flawed. While your understanding of evolution is flawed, thus supporting imaginary beings in your head, the science of evolution is unmistakeable. Claims are made, and evidence is used to support/verify these claims. The lack of your special "missing links" does not detract from the fact that the theory is well supported by available physical evidence. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it any less so, it just suggests you lack the capacity to grasp the concept. The same cannot be said for your imaginary friend, who is supported by NO evidence. When you creationists get some new, more imaginative talking points, bring them by and we'll discuss.

"They didn't want the class taught, they terrorized somebody and got their way."

CS - This group of people uses many different strategies in their effort to push their religion into our public lives. The main goal of the ID movement is to put their religion on an equal footing with science. This is a ludicrous idea to almost all scientists, but is being pushed by the fundi-rists because they see science as a threat to their faith. Which it is, because science looks for the verifiable truths, of which supernatural beings are not. I'd be happy if they kept their beliefs in church and left the rest of us alone, but they can't seem to get that.

"Makes you think the anti-Evo's must be onto something!!"

Separating you from your money.

Horace--All those fakes you mentioned were exposed by scientists--not religious people---scientists. Science searches for facts, and the facts show the bible is false. Hitler was a Christian--you can't hide the documents--they are there for all to see.

So a guy who dislikes "fundies" says he gets beat up by them and everybody flat out believes him?

"What part of my life don't you think is real? Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 12:16 PM | Reply"

Well, perhaps the part where you're pulling out a description of a person that brands them "a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs," admonishes "Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy" (expert witness, undoubtedly), and then intones: "Merry Christmas to you...Keep Christ in Christmas. He is the reason for the season."
Yeah, those parts for starters.

Don, how do you explain the prominent and brilliant scientists who dismiss Evolution? For instances Sir Fred Hoyle, or Dr. Michael Denton?, or Not everyone who disagrees with Evolution is a crackpot, are they?

For instance, a fierce critic of lazy Evolutionary thinking was Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was so bothered by the holes in the Evolutionary fossil record that he championed Punctuated Equilibria, a theory that states Evolution occured in mcirobursts that would need no fossil record to support they happened so quick.

How do you explain smart people working in the field who find it unconvincing? Moreover, you must be aware that many critics are not ID or even theistic in any way. They just can't abide the holes and awaiting the 'missing link' *finally* arriving like some Second Coming!

Horace

Buffy, it is quite easily researched that Hitler was creating a Volk Religion based upon paganism.

But I defer to your wisdom -- what part of Hitler's agenda was 'Christian' in any obvious method, manner or ideology?

If you could answer that without deferring to broad and vague statements, historical reductions supposedl tying the Crusades or the discovery of the new World, or ad hominem attacks against religion, it would be appreciated!

Horace

Homer, the way this guy described his attackers, driving a truck and muttering anti-E stements, I had the same feeling. He made them fit the stereotype so well. yet where is the hard evidence of this attack?

Who says this guy can't have made this attack up to gin up support for Evolutionists & show what monsters the anti-E's are?

It wouldn't be the first time a fraud was perpetuated to further 'science'...

Horace

If I were Satan, I'd find no better way to destroy Christianity than having people wrap themselves in it an commit attrocities.

Intelligent Design is a distraction. It is more "anti-genesis" than plain old Evolution.

The important thing to consider is that the greatest threat to America is BushCo and the greatest threat to Christianity is NeoCons. Not suprising that NeoCons hate Jimmy Carter, who walks the talk. Or the UN, that, although flawed is a good tool for nations to resolve conflict without war. Or the ACLU which tries to protect people from abuse. All the groups and people they hate are forces for good. They also hate some bad people who are inconvenient. But who you hate does not define how good you are.

Who do the NeoCon's love?

But I'm not a Christian -- so I think Bush is just a tool of power loving psychopaths whose time will soon pass. Hopefully, Bush will be most useful as a warning to others for how not to live a life or to use power.

Ok, you know what? I was just watching you people argue, but now I'm puting down a few words.

I'm not american nor live in the US, so this is really none of my business. Anymay, I find this Intelligent Design thing quite disturbing. Not really for the theory itself, but for the way it's being put.

Evolution is a THEORY. It means it's incomplete, not proved and lacking research and more evidence. The reason it's so largely accepted is because it's the best explanation so far for the origin of species. Cientists assume that so they have something so start on. If a more solid theory apears, this one will be droped and the new one will replace it.

I don't think ID is that solid theory. If evolutionism has holes, ID has a lot more. All I've seen it's defendents do so far is point the problems with evolution and say ID is not impossible. Very cientific.

Just to finish, I must say that attacking anyone's personal faith is ridiculous and in my opinion, imoral. Discussing God's existence and purposes is a religious and filosofical issue, not a cientific one. That's what faith is all about: believing without proof.

Speaking of frauds, I bet Horace bought stock in a cold fusion startup.

I bought all the anti-E & ID books I could find at B&N and am reading them. I can't classify myself as ID because I don't presume to understand it till maybe I get finished.

Alternatively I find Evolution wholly unpersuasive for the radical amount of variety in the natural world. For instance, I just started studying and trying to memorize a certain kind of tree found in my area. There are so many different types that I am staggered and now despair of memorizing all of them like I thought I would be able to easily do.

And that's just one tree...

Horace

ps, here is W Dembski's page, a guy who is at the center of the debate. I have only visited a few links so I can't vouch for it:

From Paul Feyerabend:

Consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts" are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts" were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective.

At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticized most severely and often most unfairly and this already at the elementary school level. But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgment of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago.

The move towards "demythologization," for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong. Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight.

Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer. Knowledge Science and Relativism (1999) p.182

"I would be able to easily do."

Four billion years results in a bit of variety.

Wrong again Horace.
Do you just make this shit up or do you listen to Rush first?
When was the last time you were in a physics teaching lab?

Zat, your shorthand is a bit hard to follow. Could you clearly indicate what you are responding to so it does not remain inscrutible?

Thanks

horace

Are you a physics teacher, Zat? If you were would that mean your opinion was above criticism?

Let me put this question in perspective Zat -- if a Minister or Pastor weighs in on religious matters does this mean no one can contradict him? Does it mean his position is right by definition? Is his opinion on religion assumed to be so deep & learned as to defy contradiction? Of course not!

Conversely persons like you would immediately begin to scream 'bias'!! Of course scientists are incapable of bias being 100% purified by their training.

This difference is why a lot of lay people do not trust the statments of scientists and 'experts' like yourself. Then sens of condescension, arrogance and self-regard is unbounded on topics like this cannot bode well for the openmindedness that is supposed to animate scientific endeavors.

Horace

This should read...

This difference is why a lot of lay people do not trust the statments of scientists and 'experts' like yourself. That the sense of condescension, arrogance and self-regard is unbounded on topics like this cannot bode well for the openmindedness that is supposed to exemplify & animate scientific endeavors.

Horace

"Wrong again Horace." Wrong about what, Zat? Or more likely you are always right so details are irrelevant -- regardless if anyone outside of your mother knows to what you refer!

"Do you just make this shit up or do you listen to Rush first?" Nice ad hominem. Of course not being a proctolgist I'm unfamiliar with the feces in question as well as you. Congrats on being a polyglot, Monsieur Transverse-C! And if I answer for Rush, will you in kind answer for Joseph Mengele, a world famous experimenter?

"When was the last time you were in a physics teaching lab?" Actually Zat I am taking a break from my particle accelerator to have this highly cultured and urbane dialogue with you now.

Much obliged.

Horace

"There are so many different types that I am staggered and now despair of memorizing all of them like I thought I would be able to easily do."

Again with the talking points. "Things are so complicated that it's impossible that they could have evolved that way." The actual fact is that things are so complicated that YOU can't wrap your mind around it, and thus contribute it to some divine inspiration.

"How do you explain smart people working in the field who find it unconvincing?"

If you are refrring to those few "scientists" that subscribe to ID, then yes they are crackpots, and their peers have documented them as such. Anyone who wholely discounts evolutionary theory and claims to be a scientist is a crackpot. Steven Gould was an ardent supporter of the concept of evolution, and if you read his work instead of comsulting Dembski's talking points you would know this. Maybe start with "Mayonaise and the Origin of life". Their may be some differing explanations as to exact mechanisms, but overall the fact that things evolved and continue to evolve is pretty well established. I know the pretend science of ID probably sounds sexy to you, but in the real world it's still BS.

"Of course scientists are incapable of bias being 100% purified by their training."

But you see Horace, that's where peer review comes into play. If Zat writes a scientific paper, it's first read by a panel of scientists in Zat's field before it's even published. Once published, it's scrutinized by anyone who reads it, and if there's something wrong then Zat willed get called on it. This peer review tends to eliminate biased works. Since ID "scientists" don't ever publish anything in scientific journals, they escape peer review, and can publish the biased garbage that they pass of on the ignorant as science. Try again.

Oh, Donnyboy, wow -- I'm so sorry to not have your grasp of flora. And exactly how much of the physical world have you memorized familt, genus, species, characteristics, etc? When you do you will understand what I am getting at and not be such a knee-jerk and uneducated smartass.

I happen to know Gould outside of Dembski. Is it possible, Donnyboy for you to not spend all of your time insulting and presuming? Or is that simply the effect one gets when they take: thirdd rate mind + real world = bigot? I guess so!

I think I understand Gould better than you, by the way.

If you want to launch an all out intellectual fight, your on. You'll be buried faster than Khrushchev slamming a podium with his shoe could ever imagine. Please make my day!

In honor of Mars, Horace

ps, I bet you and your Mayonaise of Life have a particularly fetid interpretation, you sad sack.

"Another one using computers claiming science is bogus. Horace, why call you names? You demonstrate your gross ignorance constantly."

I think the above was a reference to our discussion yesterday. Using a computer to convey an idea is irrelevant in this debate--it's a red herring.

Secondly, I never once said science was bogus. That is your word and idea--thanks for proving my point about the limitations of language and memory. I simpled expressed a basic philosophical point--science like all bodies of knowledge is based on assumptions. Some of them are:

1) That there is an objective reality.
2) That our senses are accurate and sufficient instruments to measure reality
3) That language can accurately convey truth.
4) That memory is reliable.

You may be comfortable accepting all of these, and for the most part, I am too. However, I recognize an assumption when I see it. And I know enough about epistemology to know that no one, scientists, philosophers or theologians have it all wrapped up. Humility is a virtue, but then ethics is outside the domain of science. A scientists cannot prove that humility exists.

Moreover science and the scientific method uses inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning never comes to a proof just increasing probability of any given statement.

Science may offer our best method for understanding reality, but any philosopher worth his or her weight in salt can see it is not infallible.

You really should get out more.

(Don't you like the last line? I picked it up from you. It allows me to end my comment with a certain tone of, self righteous, smugness--it would seem that the fundamentals don't have the market cornered on that one. I am sure you appreciate it.)

Cheers

But I defer to your wisdom -- what part of Hitler's agenda was 'Christian' in any obvious method, manner or ideology?

If you could answer that without deferring to broad and vague statements, historical reductions supposedl tying the Crusades or the discovery of the new World, or ad hominem attacks against religion, it would be appreciated!

Horace

Posted by horace at 2005-12-06 01:33 PM | Reply

OK, so you know the answer to your own question, then you attempt to cutoff the most obvious and blatant answers, then you ask for an answer?

Hitler was much like early Christianity in that it was either 'your're either with us or you're against us...and dead'. What part of the Crusades ('Torture and Murder sprees' is more like it) would you call 'vague'??

"I'm so sorry to not have your grasp of flora."

Horace - It's not the flora that's eluding your grasp, it's the fact that ID as an alternative to evolution is a laughable concept. Your blustery retorts are entertaining (in a sad way), but your sole response is to attack me for attacking you, instead of providing any credible evidence with which to bolster your absurd claims. You spew ID talking points, then attack me for debunking them. You claim to "understand" Gould, yet use his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium to debunk evolution in general, when it's obvious it doesn't. My guess is that you like to read, but I think you have gotten in over your head. Maybe for starters you should have an intellectual discussion with that tree you're so fascinated by. I'm sure it could teach you a thing or two.

Common-S, Christianity essentially refers to Christ and His teaching. In what sense was Hitler trying to establish or further these?

Conversely, there is hard evidence that Hitler was planning on replacing the religions of the Book, ie Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. with a Volk religion. This was based upon a mystical arianism taken from Guido von List.

By the way, did you even bother to look up that name? I find that after being challenged here and then responding with specific names, places, events, people, etc. that no one bothers to do any due dilligence.

Hitler was not a Christian, but whether he was attempting to invoke the name of Christ and the Church is undoubted. Did you think it was fair when they interviewed Jeffrey Dahmer and asked him -- Why -- and he said he believed in Evolution? Is it fair to then tie him to Darwin?

FYI, 'early Christianity' is not what you claim. It was oppressed, not oppressive. Christians died for refusing to abandon the faith. It was only after governments got involved that non believers were persecuted.

Show me where Christ or the Apostles espoused anything resembling the Crusades or Naziism?

I can show you where Hitler said he hated the Bible, that the church was going to become Germanized or Naziized or cease to exist, and where he often put his faith in pagan oracles, mystical sources, and the like.

Horace

NARF!

I'm sure Jesus loves violence in his name.

Look Don, I appreciate your pity -- but it's misplaced. You really ought to hold that in reserve for yourself. You are the one blocking and tackling for an ideology coming apart at the seams. A set of beliefs that is so sensitive and leaky that it can afford to brook no opposition or allow any dissent.

You, like many Evolutionists have only contempt for those whom disagree. You cross the line when you begin the insults. And like many Darwinists you can't wait to debase your opponent. You have to start off with insults, lest anyone think you have the tiniest shred of respect for the opposition.

I provided a fair amount of evidence for what I was saying, like the faked examples of 'evolution.' Then someone replied that the fakes were discovered by 'Science'!! You create a platonic version of Science that can do no wrong.

I also pointed out the false examples of Evolutionary Pedagogy. The thing is, at least in this forum if you have no answers for a troubling question or fact, it is simply ignored. And then the person using them is pilloried for producing no facts.' Yet, if you examine the posts you will see I brought up real life fakes and problems and they dismissed out of hand.

You provoked whatever attack you claim to have received by your intemperate and childish disrespectfulness, and certainly deserved more of it. I don't use talking points, by the way. I am simply reading the books. Are you so incapable of a point-by-point response as to have to call what I named problems as talking points'? Just for your edification being a scientist' if you actually are one, or an Evolutionist doesn't make you smart. It simply means you follow the masses of the group you aspire to belong to.

This mysticizing and triumphalizing of the discipline is also misplaced. There is no such thing as Science, Donnyboy, only persons using the Scientific Method. In other words, your god has no clothes, and you turn your back on the method itself in order to defend the idol. Why not drop the pretense and the pretended, made-up superiority and come back to earth?

I certainly do study the natural world for the sheer enjoyment of it and I am sad you are so cynical and also dull of imagination that all you can think is 'fake' when you are challenged.

I made clear that I was studying the books of the anti-Evolutionists and didn't claim to be an IDist, or even know everything they believed. But in your hurried, smug and careless way you grouped me in with them.

I quite rightly quoted Gould where something he believed seemed to go against the regular Evolutionists, a group whom you seem to fall in with. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the more I interact with supercilious yet intellectually vacuous individuals like you, the more I see how truly devoid of original thought or independent thinking the Evolutionists are.

Long live the god Darwin & his minions!

Horace

Ps, In over my head'? Hahahaha!

"A set of beliefs that is so sensitive and leaky that it can afford to brook no opposition or allow any dissent."

Horace - you can dissent against physical evidence supporting evolution all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't understand it.

"You, like many Evolutionists have only contempt for those whom disagree. "

Not contempt - more like the pity you described earlier. You've made up your mind that you're not going to agree, and from that vantage point dismiss all facts regarding the subject while ignoring the lack of evidence that supports your case.

"Yet, if you examine the posts you will see I brought up real life fakes and problems and they dismissed out of hand."

I think we agreed that there were fakes, but whereas you think they somehow disprove evolution, I see them as proving that some people will do anything to get attention. Someone else brought up the point that the fakes were discovered via science, similar to how science is used to support evolution.

"In other words, your god has no clothes,"

While you may see science as a god challenging your beliefs, I look at it more as the body of infomation gathered and confirmed via the scientific method. There is no god, only a set of rules by which all matter behaves, unlike the mysticism you suggest. If you didn't have such a hard-on for disproving a verifiable theory that for whatever reason you thinks contradicts your religious beliefs then this might make sense to you.

"Just for your edification being a scientist' if you actually are one, or an Evolutionist doesn't make you smart. "

I agree with this statement as well, as it applies to the "scientists" that support ID. Generalizing, I think it's valid to say that scientists as a group are more intelligent than the average human.

" truly devoid of original thought or independent thinking the Evolutionists are."

I think you're mistaking being methodical with being devoid of original thought. Science is not a complicated thing: Postulate, observe, confirm/reject. That's really all there is to it. This might lack the appeal of an imaginary designer, but it's the only way to discover the real truth.

Horace, I would like to applaud you on your obvious command of English and your knowledge of history. If you want to think some god created life as you see it, that's fine with me, just don't expect me to respect that opinion as it's not based on facts. Despite your imagined evolutionary flaws, the theory is still scientifically valid, and will continue to be investigated and refined despite the best efforts of those who cast it aside in light of their faith. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like the partially finished puzzle. We already have a good idea of what it looks like, but we continue to try to fit together pieces in an effort to complete it. The fact that it's not a complete picture doesn't make it any less of a picture.

Don -- You see how your innate sense of superiority sneaks upon on you? There are two groups of people in the world -- Evolutionists, ie the Enlightened Ones. Then there is the sad little smudged group pushed into the corner who either can't intellectually grasp the 'Grand Idea,' are too lazy or immoral to try to understand it, or are religiously blinded to its reality.

The world is a simple place, isn't it?

It is convenient to dismiss all those who are not professional scientists. But even having done that dramatic turn -- how do you account for those who are scientists and actually do understand Evolution -- yet still reject it? Your methodology doesn't allow for those.

What you haven't kenned to Don is that science has become a serious horse in the race for the Idol of the Age. To note this, and then claim that anyone who points it out or disagrees with its findings must be religiously motivated is shallow. It reveals what is rightly called Scientism, the approach towards science in bowed reverence as is due a great cult.

The Evolutionists are logically and ideologically dead wrong on one important point. Namely, it matters not a fig the motivations of the critics, only the substance therein of the critique. Yet after reading many reviews and reactions one would have to conlude the motives of the disbleivers are all that matters.

But that is the classic ad hominem dismissal, 'Consider the Source, " or 'Poisoning the Well.' In other words -- what that person says in unacceptable since they are from the wrong group!!

Science is not difficult, essentially. I accept Popper's definition, which you should have detected above. Moreover I like Kuhn's overview of Paradigms. Lastly I enjoy Feyerabend's pointing out the problems with mythologizing science.

The Evolutionists do not allow dissent and I would like to know the difference between them and any garden variety cult. True Science is the antithesis of that and is supposed to carry water for no one.

I think a Kuhnian Revolution is brewing in Biology.

Horace

The only people who use the term "evolutionist" are creationists.

Zat, you are starting to ressemble a Horsefly.

Shoo fly!

H

I do not ask job applicants in interview what their religious beliefs are. But if an atheist freely offers their beliefs; I don't want them around no matter how qualified they are.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 10:17 AM | Reply

And you claim to be an american? Bigot.

The Nazis were self-conscious pagans

Hitler was a christian, and backed by the vatican.

101- I asked doc know it all it all to meet me in a parkinglot after he pulled a comment about me defending a concentration camp guard out of his ass.

Not my best moment to be sure.

Horace- Hitler used whatever helped his cause.

But the vatican did support him.

And they signed as concordant in 1933 making roman catholocism the only recognized religion in germany, Horace.

"Concordat"

Oops.

I agree the Catholic Church did help the Nazis. I am sure there were many individual priests or sections of the Church who resisted. Unfortunately the Catholic Church has been implicated in inexplicable acts of anti-Semitism during WWII.

But Hitler had a pagan view of Germany. Many people do not realize it because it is not discussed much. But His Aryanism was idealized as a return to Old German ways understood to be Spartan and Greek in essence.

It is fascinating to note that Hitler's view of his ideal man was highly homoerotic, as the posters put out by the Reich are reminiscent of later gay icons like Tom of Finland -- muscular, blonde, earnest, militant.

The Brownshirts were the Nazi youth group modelled on the Greeks. The leader was a famous and quite open homosexual man -- Ernst Rohm. Of course it is speculated Hitler was gay, and rumoured that he was a gay prostitute during his bohemian artist period. Also Rohm may have been a lover, and another important Nazi -- Hess, was also gay.

Hitler was quite close to Rohm, and Rohm did much to prepare Germany for Hitler. It is therefore sad, but unsurprising that Adolf had him killed during the Night of Long Knives. At that point Hitler realized his gay past would no longer be easily swallowed by an increasingly large and earnest following.

Horace

Like i said, hitler used what worked.

He signed the concordat likely because the support of the Vatican "legitimized" his reign, and offered one more layer of control over his country

Only roman Catholcism was allowed, it became a crime to speak against it, children were forced to utter prayer in school, and a 10% tax went to the church. Just another set of shackles for the german people.

I guess there's a conspiracy under every Bush...

Horace

Horace the humorous,

Evolution is of this earthly plane, God is not of this earthly plane. So given this some latitude, which is provable?

I think the answer speaks for itself.

name dropping does not convince me you are intelligent, just you can name drop.

So in other words, Scientism doesnt care about what people think, only what they can prove.

Sounds good to me.

"Scientism"

Huh?



Horace, ... almost as entertaining as Nutzville.

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge

You don't believe this anymore than anyone else on this thread. Science holds itself to empirical evidence of provable fact. If repeated the same outcome.

By what you have postulated here I would say you think evolution has no validity.
I say you are quite wrong and the evidence suggest you are quite wrong.

I am a christian and I do believe in evolution. I however do not believe in ID. Hum! Quite the conundrum to say the least.

Conservation of Matter is fact. Given this, poof! Creation does not hold water or salt for that matter, so given this, evolution is the logical step to our given existance of our coming to being or how we came to being.

Resistance is futile!

Zat,

Horace was quite entertaining to say the least. Double talking but saying nothing.

"Horace was quite entertaining to say the least. Double talking but saying nothing."

I disagree with the above. Horace is simply trying to state that science is not the only avenue to truth. To think science is the only path is limiting and not without fallacies.

This idea is usually covered in Philosophy 101.

You should get out more.

(P.S. I am not a fundamentalist and I do accept evolution.)

disagree with the above. Horace is simply trying to state that science is not the only avenue to truth. To think science is the only path is limiting and not without fallacies.

I think I justly answered this:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge

You don't believe this anymore than anyone else on this thread.

Paleo,

Perhaps there are more Atheist (if there actually are, since you refuse to provide proof) professors because professors are supposed to be more intelligent and thus they realize what bullshit religion actually is?
And by the way, I am a Conservative Republican. There actually are Conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, that are not Bible thumpers. By the way, have you actually ever READ that Bible you thump on all of the time or is it just a stage prop?
Just wondering....

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge

You don't believe this anymore than anyone else on this thread."

I don't believe science is the only avenue or mode in reaching knowledge or truth. It is a very important one, but not the only one.

If science was the only mode then discpline of philosophy would not be necessary, but it is.

I think it is telling that philosophy is needed to describe science but science is not needed to describe philosophy.

Cheers

City of Los Angeles
High School Math Proficiency Exam


Name:
__________________________
Gang:
__________________________


1. Jerome has an AK-47 with an 80-round clip. If he misses 6 out of 10 shots and shoots 13 times at each drive-by shooting, how many drive-by shootings can he attempt before he has to reload?

2. Willie gets $200 for stealing a BMW, $50 for a Chevy, and $100 for a 4X4. If he has stolen 2 BMWs, 3 4X4s, how many
Chevies will he have to steal to make $800?

3. Hector knocked up 6 girls in his gang. There are 27 girls in the gang. What percentage of the girls in the gang has Hector knocked up?

If you have noticed, scientists and their ilk are not very good at defending science. This is admittedly surprising since the stuff of science is supposed to be logic + observation + repetition = the Scientific Method. They should have a leg up on the rest of us since their forte is supposedly logic, and yet they act as if caught with their pants down when questioned.

I think what is actually occurring is that science, much like any other epistemological claim on the universe has a certain faith commitment associated with it. Then after that is made it is neither doubted nor revisited. This is much like a religious person's conversion.

Deep decisions involving one's hunches or bets on the quintessential nature of the universe, even on science, are often gut calls. Therefore emotion is involved and there tends to be a certain defensiveness when they are challenged.

It is not helpful when Science is defined as 'that which is never wrong.' The Scientific Method may not err, but the claims taken from its application and misapplication are often full of flaws. Science is simply application of the Scientific Method. A hypothesis is developed and then tried out in a controlled environment. It isn't rocket science, although has been used to further it.

The whole problem with Evolution is it is an unrepeatable and therefore untestable theory. Further roiling the waters is it immediately became the thing filling the void where a metaphysical faith claim about origins used to reside. So it became, by default, a pseudo-explanation.

The really question is about the Big bang -- whether it happened, and if so -- Who was the Big Banger? Even the Greeks knew there was no uncaused causes.

If the Evolutionists could just admit this much, perhaps we could move on with our dialogue.

Horace

Horace-
Name one scientific endeavor from the ID crowd.

Just one.

Horace-
While you're searching for that, I have a few other problems with your post:

"It is not helpful when Science is defined as 'that which is never wrong.'"

No. It's not helpful, but it's your definition.

"The whole problem with Evolution is it is an unrepeatable and therefore untestable theory."


"The really question is about the Big bang -- whether it happened, and if so -- Who was the Big Banger? Even the Greeks knew there was no uncaused causes."

Nice. You've conflated the "Big bang" and "Evolution" all in one post. Though I do appreciate the reference to "the Greeks". Perhaps we should return to their level of understanding, if I'm correct in assuming that by "the Greeks", you intend the empire of a few thousand years ago.

Horace?

Hello?

Is Evolution looking for a Big Banger?

Sounds like he's treading into some very Tower of Babel-esque territory...

Didn't the Vatican's own chief astronomer acknowledge that ID is "creationism in disguise"?

And whose version of creationism might that be? The logically/observably/
repeatedly failed Judeo-Christian one?

Oil Can Boyd -- whatsup?

Were you thinking I may have been referencing the University Greek System? You are very thorough!

Science, as it has been referred to in this forum is portrayed as a benign and faultless system currently menaced by the Christians and their superstition.

Was I not allowed to mention Evolution and the Big Bang during the same cup of coffee? Maybe you should post these rules somewhere, Oil Can, for the unwashed -- like myself. Keep me on the straight & narrow, so to speak!

Now allow me to ponder how to 'return to the level of their (the Greeks, that is) understanding' that you so cryptically mentioned. Maybe it involves komast?

Thanks Oil Can!

Horace

ps, I like how you quote and then don't comment. Perhaps your scientific mysticism is springing into action in some unmoved way!

Hello Oil Can Boyd!!

Bon Nuit!

Horace

Horace-
Name one good bit of science from your ID folks, as I requested.

Just one.

The hilarious thing is I am not an ID person. I am not even sure what they believe, although I should be done with the books in a few weeks. Then perhaps I will be. I don't like to stand for ideas I haven't studied.

As to what the Vatican says...don't they officially support Evolution? You have to admit they make a living out of doing the incongruous!

Horace

The whole problem with Evolution is it is an unrepeatable and therefore untestable theory. Further roiling the waters is it immediately became the thing filling the void where a metaphysical faith claim about origins used to reside. So it became, by default, a pseudo-explanation.

The really question is about the Big bang -- whether it happened, and if so -- Who was the Big Banger? Even the Greeks knew there was no uncaused causes.

If the Evolutionists could just admit this much, perhaps we could move on with our dialogue.

I'm confused, Horace. Do you want to go after "Evolution" or the "Big bang"?

If you have noticed, scientists and their ilk are not very good at defending science. This is admittedly surprising since the stuff of science is supposed to be logic + observation + repetition = the Scientific Method.

You have said nothing to refrute that scientific method is false. Since you have not come up with anything worth defending other than try to say ID or your faith is as valid as science in a pejorical sense of the word and quite myopic at best in ones faith.

Science, as it has been referred to in this forum is portrayed as a benign and faultless system currently menaced by the Christians and their superstition.

Because you have portrayed it this way does not mean it to be so - all.

I find it quite funny you attacking science to promote ID and your christian faith. I also find it funny that science does not attack your faith or belief but strives to come up with the truth.

Horace-
Perhaps you'd like to tell us all about the bug up your butt, then.

Otherwise, I suppose we have nothing to talk about -- though you brought your bug-butt-issue up to begin with.

Horace -
Have you ever taken so much as a college biology course?

Butt Bug...is that Syphillis?

My dear friend, you have lost me.

Fill me in -- euphemistically, of course!

Horace

"I am just learning about ID, Oil Can. Can I get back to you on that? In fact, I am not even sure I have the quiteesential ID books. I just grabbed what B&N had. I need to talk to an ID person & see if I am on the correct reading list."

Just nevermind.

Money, have you read the posts previous to your copy paste? There were serious problems outlined, of which I haven't really mentioned nearly half. But since it is the Evolutionist's manner to insult when I ask questions, -- what's the point?

I note though your statment that science "strives to come up with the truth." You have personified science now. Do you really think that is reasonable? Is science a person to have a will and purpose and integrity? Or have you just perhaps gotten a little carried away? It's called Anthropomorphism, and is usually claimed against Christains and their God.

I have read something on gnostic Evolution which was interesting. I think I will post it.

Horace

Thomas Lessl's "Gnostic Scientism and the Prohibition of Questions"

Excerpt of a critique

Thomas Lessl's "Gnostic Scientism and the Prohibition of Questions" suggests a powerful framework for understanding the movement of modern science in public affairs. However, I sometimes felt that Lessl was more interested in using "gnosticism" as a catchall term to stigmatize all defenses of evolutionary theory than actually to reveal the gnostic character of those defenses, when they are indeed gnostic. Therefore, I shall argue that gnostic scientism should be understood as a more circumscribed, but no less significant, phenomenon than Lessl claims. As Lessl's own examples show, it is more prevalent in biology than physics, but not all Darwinists are gnostics. I begin by recalling what it is about gnosticism that has traditionally led to its anathematization by a wide range of religious and political authorities.

There are two general ways of thinking about the relationship between the ideal and the real, especially as it is played out in humans as "mind" and "matter." One way is to suppose that each is incomplete without the other, the other that the two are irreconcilable opposites. In the former case, matter is necessary to realize the mind's capacities; in the latter, it drags down or inhibits those capacities. The former way thus aims for an integration of mind and matter, whereas the latter way aims for the purification of mind from matter. In each set of alternatives, the latter is the way of the gnostic.

There is considerable controversy over who is and is not rightly seen as a gnostic, since the term is usually applied pejoratively. For example, in his early "humanist" writings, which were influenced by Hegel's secularization of Christian eschatology, Marx was not a gnostic. However, as Marxists increasingly stressed the need for a revolutionary break with past political practice, their gnostic tendencies came into view. Generally speaking, a rough-and-ready test for gnosticism is to ask whether ordinary people can come to a radically...

Interesting...I think I need a copy of this!

Horace

The Catholic church says that the faithful are free to believe in evolution. However, this is not unlimited.

There are 4 things that faithful Catholics must adhere to.

1. All mankind came from one set of parents. (so not a whole lotta monkeys becoming human)

2. Woman came from man in some way.

3. God directly infuses the human soul.

4. I think this last one is that God directed any evolutionary happenings but I'm not sure.

So we know that either there was direct creation of the first man or that God used the evolutionary process to produce the first body that he then directly made man.

So go ahead and post about how crazy it is that people would listen to a man in a funny hat. But I truly believe that the office of the papacy has infallible authority in matters of faith and morals. So I don't really care what you say!

I do not ask job applicants in interview what their religious beliefs are. But if an atheist freely offers their beliefs; I don't want them around no matter how qualified they are.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 10:17 AM | Reply

Perhaps they don't want to work for a Cult member like yourself??

Money, your post is difficult to follow. But having parsed it a bit I see that you think I am going after the Scientific Method-- correct?

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I ador the SM!

Horace

Oh and one more thing. The Catholic Church in no way was in support of Hitler. In fact, the Pope at the time (aka "Hitler's Pope) was the single greatest SAVER of jews! And Hitler targeted Catholic's and sent them to the death camps too. Look up Maximillian Kolbe for one great example.

Furthermore, the Pope did make a deal to have control of the schools. But this was done in order to prevent HITLER from being in charge of the schools.

Now I am going to bed so good night.

sounds like a little made up publicity for his cause to me, who gets out on side of road when a suspicious truck is following you, well I would but I would have a glock 9mm in my pocket :)

also if this was done by some sort of so called christian, this only helps to prove the bible as being true. It predicted people doing things in Gods name but not be true christians. The bible plainly points out how people will do things in gods name, even though they do not have his blessings and how it will increase in numbers as we get closer to the end of time.

There will be many people that will die from the Rath of God due to their being Hypocritical Christians. He states that a luke warm person or one riding the fence is worse than a non believer.

God is a S&W revolver kind of supreme being. He doesn't like Austrians.

"... many people that will die from the Rath of God due to their being Hypocritical Christians."

No. I won't. It's too easy.

I've got Rath of God's first LP. My favorite cut it 'Ms. Spelt'.

Yes. Yes, I will:

They're [almost] all hypocritical!! It's in the DNA!!

WWJC[oncealed carry]?

A S&W model 500. I'm sure I heard that on Sunday morning TV ... somewhere in Texas or Oklahoma.

Horace,
You did extensive study of the Nazi usage of religion? From what I read, it doesn't appear so.
You say Nazi's tried to co-opt religion to increase power, yet you forget to mention the basis of Christianity's origins.
If so you would mention Christianity was co-opted by the Romans and perverted to fit THEIR ancient religions and beliefs. Why do you think there are so many versions of Christianity? Many felt Rome corrupted the basic premise of Christianity by elevating Mary to equal Jesus. In fact, before his death, John Paul II considering naming Mary as the "Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God." This means that all prayers must flow through her as the ONLY channel of grace from Jesus.
This would elevate Mary to a place in a new "Holy Quartet"!
Instead of the Holy Trinity, it would be the Holy Quartet. You'll be saying, "In the name of the Father, the Mother, The Son and the Holy Ghost".
When you speak of government co-opting the Christian religion, remember it had already been co-opted by Emperor Constantine in 312 CE.
That's when HE made Catholicism the official religion of Rome, HE chose where St Peter's Basilica was to be built and built it, HE banned "Pagan" religions (actually, he perverted Christianity into a polyglot religion mixing Christianity with paganism).
If you dispute this, why was Mary so prominent, given the same symbols Isis had, complete with blue dress, statues of Isis and child Horus converted to Mary and Jesus, Isis temples converted to churches, etc.
Why was the Ankh modified to a Christian cross? Jesus wasn't crucified on a cross, so why is a cross the symbol of the crucifixion? Because the Ankh (an Ankh is a "T" with an oval mounted atop). An Ankh looks like a cross and Romans used a "T" mount for crucifixion (less wood). The "T" was usually 7 feet tall, so with Jesus 6 ft tall and at least one ft above the ground, there couldn't be a cross unless he was 4 feet tall.
You also say that there are fake items in Evolution yet don't mention fakes in religion.
How about the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus' burial shroud. No documentation of its origin or storage location. Crucifixion was a common method of execution in the time of Jesus. Alexander the Great crucified 2000 citizens of Tyre, Roman General Grassus had 6000 rebel slaves (including Spartacus) lining the Apian Way into Rome, Roman General Titus crucified 500 Jews a day while besieging Jerusalem (ran out of space for crucifixions and wood to crucify them on), Quintilias Varus had 2000 people crucified in one day for his own amusement in 40 BCE.
With all of this, how can anyone verify the shroud as Jesus' when 10's of thousands of people have been crucified? The figure on the cloth is totally wrong! Youl see a perfectly formed human face with long hair and a perfect beard. In the Bible, Jesus had a cloth tied from his jaw to the top of his head to keep his mouth from falling open. How can that maintain a photo perfect image? 99.9% of the descriptions the march to the execution site say he bore his cross. Never happened. Romans crucified so many people they never hauled crosses to the site, only the cross-bar since the entire device weighs 300 lbs.
How many depictions of Christ on a cross show him nailed through his hands? How many people claim to have Stigmata markings, yet bleed from the palms instead of the wrists?
Romans NEVER nailed people by their hands. The hand isn't strong enough to bear 175 lbs. They nailed them through their wrists, unless they really wanted to be nasty. Then they would nail them upside down, including a nail through the family jewels for fun.
So tell me a bit more about fake "evidence", but by all sides.

The hilarious thing is I am not an ID person. I am not even sure what they believe,...
Horace

Posted by horace at 2005-12-06 10:19 PM | Reply

No.. you are fucking crazy as a shithouse rat..

Horace,
Two points.
1) You said "scientists and their ilk" and you went on with a barrage of condescending and disparaging remarks about scientists and praise of religion.
My response to this is that in 1 BCE and even at 50 Ce, 20 years after the departure of Jesus, the noraml lifespan of humans was 45 years old if a child reached 5. If you reached 20, your life expectancy was about 58 years total. Today the lifespan of humans is between 80-65 years in Israel, then same area used for the previous figures. In the USA it is 75-80 and in Canada it is 80-85.
This didn't happen because of religion, it happened because of science. How do I know. Simply by looking at areas with little or no religion or non chritian beliefs, such as China and Russia. In China, Viet Nam and Thailand it is 70-75 and in Russia it is 65-70. Both are lower than the USA but higher than they were at the time of Christ.
Science is the reason for this. So you will have the benefit of many more years to sneer at scientist, thanks to scientists. Not thanks to your priest, preacher, Rabbi or whomever leads your worship.

2) You said Hitler planned to replace all religions with "arianism". You have to clarify this word since the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church considered ALL Christian religions other than Catholicism as "arianism".
From Martin Luther to the Church of England and everywhere in between, "arianism" was christianity that was not under the command and control of the Pope.
So when you say that Hitler was planning to develop "arianism", you have to define what you mean. It isn't good enough to say "Paganism" since the entire Roman Cathpolic Church is based upon "Paganism", from the statues of Saints that are worshiped in direct violation of the Bible to priests requiring worshippers to say their "Hail Marys" in worship of a human being instead of God.
So where is the difference between the Pope and Hitler? Did the Pope speak out when he was in full knowledge that not only was Hitler destrying 8 million Jews, but also Gypsies, Eastern Europeans who worhiped in the Orthodox Churches of eastern europe, 10 million Russians, etc? No, he kept silent as 20 million people were put into the ovens.

Horace,

How do you explain a different flue virus outbreak every single year for which our vacines no longer work, or why are our antibiotics losing their effectivness over tuberculosis and other bacteria?

If you have trouble fathoming evolution over geologic time scales, just look at what occurs in a short period with disease.

But I don't expect I'll convince you of anything.

You could also point to the domestication of many animals.

So many assumptions...so little time. This is the kind of story that lends itself to profiling straw men to suit one's own proclivities. Factual descriptions and information from the news story on the two assailants are that they were two white men, 30 - 40 years old, in a large pick up truck. All else that is ascribed to them, including motive, religious beliefs, world view, real or purported association with true or false Christianity, etc. exists in the mind of the poster. As Jon Lovitz was fond to say on SNL, "Yeah...yeeaaahh...that's the ticket!"

"The Nazis believed God was on their side too. So do the Iranians, the Palestinians and every terrorist on the planet. These Christains are terrorists. That was a terrorist attack.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2005-12-06 10:16 AM | Reply"

So, Bob, I can't find the reference in the article that the two assailants were Christians. In fact, given the tenets of true Chistianity, the actions of the two assailants would indicate that they were anything but genuine Christians. Help us out here, Bob. Point us to the evidence.

"I wouldn't really accept a high percentage of athiests as proof, unless we're talking really high like 90%."

But this does support the theory that atheists are smarter than Xtians. I think those rednecks were just jealous.

Posted by dontardo at 2005-12-06 10:18 AM | Reply"

Depends on your standard for measuring knowledge and wisdom.

"...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Timothy 3:7

BTW, I don't recall anything in the article identifying the assailants as "rednecks." More ethnic profiling?

"So where is it?"

It's called the fossil record.
There are hundreds of thousands of specimens. Try to get out more.

Posted by zatoichi at 2005-12-06 10:19 AM | Reply"

Let the ad hominem attacks from the left begin...

What does the fossil record really teach concerning the theory of evolution? Do the fossils demonstrate the progression from simple structures to complex organisms? The following facts need to be considered:

* Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals.

* Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

* Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

* Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

* Fast strata formation. There is increasing evidence that many sedimentary rocks, which some thought took thousands or millions of years to accumulate, almost certainly were deposited in only months, days, hours, or minutes.

* Rapid coal formation. The old Evolutionary theory about coal forming in swamps is wrong. There is increasing evidence that massive coal deposits were formed in deep flood waters. Various coal layers in the U.S. consist mainly of sheets of tree bark abraded from huge masses of uprooted trees. The bark layers were buried in mud and carbonized into coal. Coal formation is relatively quick when heat is applied.

Continued

* Fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation. Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish, and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid sediments.

* Wrong order for evolution. It has been reported that "80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Rastamon
It is useless to struggle.
But they are entertaining.
Reading the ignorant bullshit from people who would use a computer to claim science is bogus keeps me in stitches all day at the lab.

Definition of theory.
A *way of thinking* about the *observed* data and predicting future data that explains and *predicts* observation.

A theory is not real, it is not true, and it does not mean anything.

Next I predict we will hear why carbon dating doesn't work. Everyone get your snacks.

Reading assignment for next week:
Gravitation and Cosmology
-Weinberg

There will be a quiz.

Don't ya just love how easily Rcade can change the headline of a story to rev these dims engines up....

Nowhere in this article does it provide supportive evidence for Rcades new and self thought improved headline.

Remedial reading classes are in order for most libwits... coming here has convinced me of that.... Libs just can't seem to comprehend what they've read period....

Shy-ster, I am still sore at you for not responding to my extensive Friday Nooner posts from our last meeting.

I appreciate your doubting of my scholarly abilities on this, of course -- but are you trying to trick me into responding again to another ghost posting?

Horace

ps, It must have been a Ring Rath!

Shyster-Guyster, you really ought to learn the art of the *paragraph*. It saves the reader a lot of eye strain & helps reinforce whatever point you think you might have.

And yes, I did reasearch Nazi religion quite awhile ago, which is why I knew about the Fuhrer's pagan designs for the Fatherland. I am always amazed at the challanges that occur in this place by people with too desultory a methodology to actually read in depth for themselves!

Horace

Legio my Egio, insane as outhouse rodentia, eh?

When I first encountered the brief, profanity laced phillipics typically launched in here against Conservatives and Libertarians, of course I was charmed. Who wouldn't be?

Now I am nonplussed. What exactly is the supposed intent? If I have a point to make I try to get to it. These profane broadsides quite often do nothing more than attack the dignity of the recipient, yet leave whatever the exact crime was undisturbed.

If you must curse someone to make your point, because your adolescence was tragically delayed -- OK. I guess that is just everyone's great luck in here to have to ingest that. But could you please kindly at least attach some kind of point, criticism or position?

Damning someone, in itself -- is not an argument, FYI.

Horace

For anybody interesting in the Shroud of Turin, I highly recommend www.shroud.com as THE best online resource.

It was created by Barrie Schwortz who was the official documentation photographer for STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project - the group of scientists who studied it in the late 70s). The site contains a wealth of information included papers written by the scientists who have studied the Shroud over the years.

p.s, could we keep Legio McEgio away from sugar and chocolate till naptime?

Thanks, Horace

Maybe the designer was intelligent, but his design is decidedly stupid.

From the article: Andrew Stangl, president of the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the university... said... "That absolutely shocked me," he said, "because people don't do that in a civilized society."

ipso facto, we don't live one...

Bella,
Well, I'm following your logic, but I think it's a little too general. Some of us try to be civilized, others not so much.
As for this particular case (if this hasn't been pointed out already), when you deliberately set out to antagonize people, you shouldn't be all that surprised when some people become antagonized.
There are morons on both sides of this particular fence.

I would like to ask one question. If Evolution involves slow, random change then how does one explain the Pre-Cambrian explosion where all life appears almost simultaneously over a few brief years?

Since you guys insist that one cannot be an anti-Evolutionist without being a crypto ID person -- It sounds a LOT more like Creation than any slow accidental mutations, to me.

Horace

As Grendel quite accurately asks, is the only value we accept that of the scientific?

If so what does that tell us about who we are, why we are here and who gets to create the rules all must live by?

Horace

AgFe-ist

"one datapoint"

ROFL

And thanks! Fifty six orbits of Sol since I was born. (Sorry Nicey, it's not 56&3/4)

That is an interesting post and sounds quite reasonable however evolutionary theory does not employ, in any significant way, "large data sets, numbers, especially precise numbers, mathematics, sophisticated statistical analysis" in its development so it doesn't really apply here.

DOGMAN

Can't you guys see that 'Evolution' is a myth in which your scientific hopes and aspirations are organized around? This is why it has never been 'proven,' simply because it is not true! And its lack of actual existence in history is exactly why so many 'proofs' were needed to be falsified.

The truth doesn't need an ad campaign assembled of lies, suppostions, conjecture, 'artist's renditions' & wiful thinking. Evolution is no more 'true' than the Greek notion that the world was supported by a giant turtle.

The Cargo Cult mentality engendered by Evolution has wasted countless manhours and dollars searching for a rainbow who's end will never be found!

Horace

"This is why it has never been 'proven,' simply because it is not true!"

I see you're still at it, Horace. I think someting Grendel posted yesterday may apply to this. I'll paraphrase - Science doesn't "prove" anything, it simply establishes probability. As the probability increases through experimentation and observation, the likelihood that a theory is true increases until it is accepted as such. Given the large amount of available data (see Rastacyborg's link for starters), the probability that evolution occurred is significantly higher than the probability that a god created all the life on Earth (no evidence). Given this probability (i'm sure you'll ask for a number even thought you should know that there is none) and the peer established credibility of the scientists doing the published research, it has been established to me (and others) that the thoery of evolution is correct.

As for your "few years" of the Cambrian Explosion, I offer the following:

Precision dating indicates that the explosion began at 530 Ma (million years ago) and ended before 520 Ma" (Bowring et al. 1993 ???).

So let's do the math. 530-520=10 Ma. For the sake of being conservative, it does say ended before 520 Ma, so we'll go with 5 million years. Given the fossil record to date, this is roughly the time it took for present day humans to evolve from their ape anscestors. So why wouldn't you expect to see different animals at the end and beginning of this period? During the explosion evidence indicates that the conditions on earth (warm and moist) were excellent for survival and procreation of the existing species, and hence the numbers of animals increased significantly. Since the number of animals increased, the number of genetic mutations increased, and the number of beneficial mutations increased leading to an increase in the number of new species. 5 million years is a long time (250K human generations), so the Cambian Explosion isn't some radical evolution disproving event. It actually supports the theory of modification via natural selection. More animals = more mutations = more diversity.

Don't forget the animals were very primitive and most probably had short lifespans and rapid reproductive cycles. This would even further the exceleration of diverse mutations.

DOGMAN

I think that there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution,(a species changing w/in the species) but not for macro-evolution(a species changing into a different species).

It is pointless to argue. There are those that believe their mental capabilities and pure thought can justify any a priori conclusion, and there are those that understand the distinction between reasonable extrapolation and empirical evidence and do their best to articulate hypothesis and theory based on the physical natural world.

The belief of an absolute answer kills any thirst for true knowledge. Instead you get nothing but recasting of evidence and fact to justify the a priori belief.

Science at least allows peer review, debates, and constant questioning - but within the framework of the Natural World.

To be so committed to your position you deny or recast the physical evidence that is in abundance around you will cause you to miss the potential grandeur you seek in your metaphysical spirit world.

I prefer to be a physical being, amazed at what man can contemplate, conceive, analyze, and postulate.

Without hubirs, I offer the above IMHO.

CHRISTIANS...shouldn't they have all been fed to the lions years ago?

I believe jesus was the David Blayne of his era.

"I think that there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution,(a species changing w/in the species) but not for macro-evolution(a species changing into a different species)."

Please use youe enlightened view of evolution to explain the differentiation of species on the Galapagos Islands. Based on your claim, all the individual species specific to each island (totoise, finch, etc.) were individualy created, as opposed to evolving from the same ancestor? Despite their common traits? That makes a LOT of sense.

Yes Yav, please patronize me some more while keeping your eyes wide shut!

Evolution is constructed upon a very long line of hoaxes, frauds, 'hopeful monsters,' and pure imagination. Yet I am the one putting all my hope in 'fairy tales'?

I will repeat, something universally trues & historically omnipresent needs not the smallest lie to prop up its case. The evidence from the fossi record, mutating species, and missing links should be leaping out every 5 seconds.

Having said that, I ask -- Why is the history of Darwinism one big cannard?

Horace

ps, And by the way, if you all are so educated, why is it left up to an ignoramus like me to point out the manifest frauds and shortcomings?

Answer:You have bought the big picture & have no interest in any details. Therefore you have become intellectualy & scientifically lazy and corrupt!

Tranquilizer darts! Anyone got any tranquilizer darts?!?

If you must curse someone to make your point, because your adolescence was tragically delayed -- OK. I guess that is just everyone's great luck in here to have to ingest that. But could you please kindly at least attach some kind of point, criticism or position?

Damning someone, in itself -- is not an argument, FYI.

Horace

Posted by horace at 2005-12-07 09:38 AM | Reply
"Horus"
your viewpoint is contradictory and eratic while at the same time you proclaim no allegiance to ID but spout out reams of bs that supposedly prove ID. read the comment again I was describing your mindset not flailing obscenities.

I will flail an obscenty here:

Go fuck yourself nitwit.

"The Speckled Moth case is a fraud, just exactly as I was discussing. Those moths were GLUED to the trees where the birds picked them off."

Horace - from your own source - "Hooper speculates that he might have fudged the numbers." Ahhh, the power of unbiased speculation. This women is obviously working towards the same goal you seek - disproving evolution. Irregardless of whether the moths are glued to the tree or not, if you glue 10 dark moths and 10 light moths to a tree, and birds eat all the light moths and leave the dark ones alone, then it's quite reasonable to conclude that the dark moths have a survival advantage over the lighter ones. Maybe the birds don't like dark meat, maybe the can see the lighter moths easily, whatever. If the birds preferentially eat lighter moths, then more dark moths will survive and procreate, thus leading to a shift in population from light to dark.

"Evolution is constructed upon a very long line"

What you've actually presented is a very small sample of the available data, preferentially selected to include cases you believe to be fradulent. You're actually guilty off the same bias you claim exists in science. Your information sampling is skewed to the anit-evolution position, and you conveniently ignore everything else.

"intellectualy & scientifically lazy and corrupt!"

I believe scientifically lazy would fit you perfectly. You are quite a resevoir for infomation, but you present it a way that meets your needs and deny that it could be any other way.

Come on LEGIO, he can make up strawmen faster than Joseph Smith.

"Evolution is constructed upon a very long line of hoaxes, frauds, 'hopeful monsters,' and pure imagination."

Is the Theory of Evolution perfect? Of course not; that's why it is not called the Law of Evolution.

It is, however, interesting, yet sad, to witness someone who has show himself to be well-informed slip and slide into irrelevance through sweeping generalizations bearing no truth in reality.

But I guess that's evolution for you.

Hans

Regardless, Merry Christmas, Horace.

Horace, regarding your link on the peppered moth experiment. The book only shows that an experiment was fradulant. The fact remains that the moths in regions effected by industrial polution became darker as the color of the trees they lived in became darker. Survival of the fittest, thats all it is, pure and simple, you can go watch it happen in your back yard if want.

"Evolution is constructed upon a very long line of hoaxes, frauds, 'hopeful monsters,' and pure imagination."

Describe these hoaxes and frauds.

DOGMAN

Honestly Don I don't really claim to know anything about it because I really don't care that much.

But similarities in what b/t a tortoise and a finch? Wasn't there a study showing that humans are only a few chromosones/DNA strands or something from worms? Does this mean that we are the same as worms or that we must have had a common ancestor? I don't think that that is proof of such a thing. I could be wrong.

I just don't think that these types of similarities PROVE macro-evolution. Do they thus necessarily PROVE that each species was individually created or came to be? I don't claim they do, but I do think that either path requires a leap of faith.

"The evidence from the fossi record, mutating species, and missing links should be leaping out every 5 seconds."

And now the pace of the research is evidence that evolution is not true. Let's compare some facts. In the International Journal of Organic Evolution (one of several peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject) V59, No, 11, Nov 2005, there are a total of 20 peer-reviewed articles. 20 articles for this specific journal in a one month period. Conservatively speaking, I would guess there are at least 5 (more like 10) scientific journals that cover this topic. So that's at least 100 different (articles aren't submitted to more than one journal) articles in any month, which is a considerable amount of reading.

Despite my best searching efforts, I could locate no peer reviewed journals discussing evidence to support ID or creation. Zero, zilch, nada, etc. Since there no evidence to date, shouldn't the fact that people presume it to be true mean that evidence should be coming even quicker than the evidence supporting evolution? That's quite obviously not the case.

What would Christmas be like without an unsubstantiated Hans cheapshot (oops, redundancy!) to slug down with one's eggnong toddy?

Horace

Like a blind squirrel tripping over a nut, the pseudo-elitist, self-hater named Hans has stumbled upon the truth about his own being ...

It is, however, interesting, yet sad, to witness someone who has show himself to be well-informed slip and slide into irrelevance through sweeping generalizations bearing no truth in reality.

Hans, I think you just experienced a catharsis of the truth. My congratulations and condolences.

Dog, why does a universally true phenomenon responsible for the trillions & trillions of evolutions occuring throughout history need a lie to 'prove' one of its most famous 'examples'?

Horace

It is quite a conspiracy these Scientists have - and of course so much would be gained if they would just throw out Evolution and go by "faith." Think of the medical breakthroughs if we could just figure out how to wave our hands and say "be HEALED!" or "EVOLVE!"

Ain't happening. God created everything at once - and we've just had a steady series of extinctions since the beginning. Must have been one hell of a planet at the start, eh? No new species could come about - or could it? Could it have been created last week like the Rockies? I'm booking a flight tomorrow - I hear a whole new species is due to appear suddenly in Borneo.

You slay me with your "logic" and conspiracy theories Horace.

Interesting dialogue here, folks.

I am witnessing a fascinating paradigm:

On one side, we have those who support the theory of evolution. On the other, we have Horace (and Macv1972, to some extent). Both sides seem to cling to their ideologies without giving due consideration to the opposing Point-of-view.


Based upon what's been discussed; here is my synopsis:

Evolution is a theory that has some serious holes in it. The theory is lacking sufficient evidenciary support. That said, the evidence that IS present, certainly DOES seem to support the theory of Evolution. Again, this is my observation based upon what's been presented on this thread (I am not even remotely knowledgeable on this subject).

I'll pose my question to the Evo-crew:

How do we account for the lack of supporting evidence and unanswered questions that are evident in the theory of Evolution?

- Remember, I am not a science guy. So please keep it somewhat simple.

"...the pseudo-elitist, self-hater named Hans"

God bless you, Stopthebox_Itch. And once again, my good friend, Merry Christmas.

Hans

"The evidence from the fossi record, mutating species, and missing links should be leaping out every 5 seconds."

Are there, or are there not, separate finch species on the Galapagos islands? You seem to agree that there are, in perhaps smaller numbers than given in their biological classification. Not a point worth making an issue out of. But then...

"To wit, they are 'adapting' to their environment WITHIN the limits of their species. For instance, the beaks grow in thickness not from 'evolving,' but merely because of drought, and then change back after the drought finishes."

So now, as long as mutations occur but no arbitrary classifcation changes are made, evolution has not occurred. And then the mutations somehow reverse themselves again in response to their environment. I think it would be better stated by saying once the original condition favorable to the first mutation (thicker beaks) is replaced by a different condition that is favorable to another mutation (smaller beaks) the birds begin to evolve thinner beaks.

"Yes, only a fool would rule out micro-Evolution, which is merely another name for constructive adaption. "

So then would "constructive adaption" over longer time spans be the same as macro-evolution? Semantics are not an acceptable scientific argument.

"I'll pose my question to the Evo-crew"

Is this sort of: "We're not human, we're Evo?"

Hans

I'm wondering why the holes in the theory, and I agree they're big, point to "Intelligent Design". Can't they indicate something else? Aren't there any other theories out there?

Hans,

Naaahh. I just thought "Evo-crew" had a nice ring to it.

"Science at least allows peer review, debates, and constant questioning - but within the framework of the Natural World.

To be so committed to your position you deny or recast the physical evidence that is in abundance around you will cause you to miss the potential grandeur you seek in your metaphysical spirit world."

I agree; though not in the manner you might hope. You go ahead and worship your science; I'll go ahead and worship the Creator, God. Science, without God, does not hold forth much of a future -- none beyond this life. Not much comfort in that. Indeed, what convinces you not to sleep in each morning?

As for the physical evidence,

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world."
Psalm 19: 1-4

Bella,

Yeah, I don't think the holes necessarily point to ID either. I am curious as to see what answers the 'evo-crew' can provide for said holes.

Because it doesn't. That experiment doesn't prove or disprove anything. An experiment wasn't needed in that case in my opion. The fact that two variants of the same moth developed in a short period of time and those variants just happen to match there enviroments perfectly is proof enough. To me the real issue with that experiment is that two scientists tried to advance their carriers fraudulantly. As for the micro v macro evolution debate, I don't no how to tackle that one yet. But there's more evidence for macro evolution than the poof here's the earth and all it's animals theory.

DOGMAN

JeffJ - You've asked a reasonable question, and I'll attempt to shed some light on it - as dim as that light might be.

"How do we account for the lack of supporting evidence and unanswered questions that are evident in the theory of Evolution?"

The "lack of supporting evidence" is in most part a matter of perspective. Some people, e.g. Niceville, would require as the sole proof of evolution a hand signed message from god. This has never been observed (out-side of certain oddly colored foo objects) so waiting for it would be a futile pursuit. I like to look at science in general (and Evolution in particular) as an unfinished jigsaw puzzle of infinite size (just try to imagine that). As we collect, verify and assemble the pieces (evidence or datum) we can begin to have an idea of what specific areas of the puzzle, or the whole puzzle for that matter, being to look like. We don't need to have it fully completed (i.e. "holes in the theory" to be able to make rational conclusions as to what it looks like, unlike my earlier Niceville example. As we continue to investigate, we collect more pieces, and occasionaly remove pieces from the puzzle, which may or may not have subtle effects on how we see the picture (it's a big puzzle afterall). If there is a piece of evidence that wholely disproves evolution, it has not been discovered, and thus the picture as we see it continues to support evolution as the mechanism by which life diversifies. I hope this helped, but if not I'll continue to expound as time permits.

"...an unsubstantiated Hans cheapshot"

Naturally, in this season of peace and good will towards men, I'll try hard to only hurl substantiated cheap shots, like some here:

Mhhhh...I thought I heard Zat buzz by!

please patronize me some more while keeping your eyes wide shut!

p.s, could we keep Legio McEgio away from sugar and chocolate till naptime?

Legio my Egio, insane as outhouse rodentia, eh?

Shyster-Guyster, you really ought to learn the art of the *paragraph*.

Zat, you are starting to ressemble a Horsefly.

Look Don, I appreciate your pity -- but it's misplaced. You really ought to hold that in reserve for yourself.

regardless if anyone outside of your mother knows to what you refer!

Please wake up and pull off the blinders, Zat!

Want more evidence?
Start digging!

what convinces you not to sleep in each morning?

The joy of my life, the wonder of all that is around me, the love of my family, the way I feel when I help someone, the joy of curiosity. I don't need a god for any of that MacV. For you, let me say I know where you are coming from. When I was a born again Christian I too felt complete and satisfied. I can tell you now that I do not miss that, nor do I have a problem with what I believe. My life will end with my death, so what I do now is what matters.

Peace to you this Season, and may the promise of your Savior be realized in your heart.

"of certain oddly colored foo objects)"

My joke foiled by my own poor spelling. Of course I was referring to food objects.

In short Jeff, the holes really don't matter that much in the larger picture that is evolutionary theory. Given enought time and effort, these holes will eventually be filled.

Yav,

Thank you for providing the link. Again, my knowledge here is sorely lacking. By serious holes, I've seen Horace and Mac pose a number of contradictions/problems with the theory that have not been addressed. From that I deduced that a lack of acknowledgement indicated those issues don't currently have answers. This then leads me to conclude that a fair amount of supposition comes into play regarding Evolution.

Personally, I think the theory of Evolution makes sense (on a basic level, namely mine). Where I have difficulty is the origins. Specifically: The origins of the universe and the origins of life. Does the universe have a starting point? If the big bang is it, what was there before the big bang? Secondly, how does inorganic material become organic? My personal belief in God points me to ID for the origins and Evolution from there.

YAV, you were a BAC? How on earth did you get enlightened? I thought once you wen't BAC, you never came back.

YAV, you were a BAC? How on earth did you get enlightened? I thought once you went BAC, you never came back.

"My personal belief in God points me to ID for the origins and Evolution from there."

A position, Jeff, to which most would agree. I know I do.

Hans

Just out of curiosity how does creationism or ID explain the lack of any evidence in the fossil record that shows that all of the animals that ever lived, lived at the same time.

If that doesn't make sense sorry I'm having a mental block on how to word it.

DOGMAN

"Peace to you this Season, and may the promise of your Savior be realized in your heart."

Thank you, Yav.

Hans

YAV - you were a BAC?

Dontardo - Horace said I was, who am I to disagree? :)

"The origins of the universe and the origins of life. "

These are much more difficult to investigate and observe than Evolution, mostly due to the speed of light and all. While it would be nice to have the answers, it would take some of the fun out of the questions I think. What would we argue about then?

Dontardo,

Thank you. Your explanation does help. Essentially, science is making its best guess based upon the information available.

Alright, folks. I am going to bow out and let the adults continue the discussion. I am considering stirring things up in the torture discussion on another thread.

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.



PS - By 'adults' I meant those of you who are knowledgeable of the subject matter.

"Please wake up and pull off the blinders, Zat!"

Thanks Hans, I missed that.


Whoever posted that ludicrous piece of horse shit, what blinders?

Get a telescope and look through it.

"The joy of my life, the wonder of all that is around me, the love of my family, the way I feel when I help someone, the joy of curiosity. I don't need a god for any of that MacV. For you, let me say I know where you are coming from. When I was a born again Christian I too felt complete and satisfied. I can tell you now that I do not miss that, nor do I have a problem with what I believe. My life will end with my death, so what I do now is what matters."

So, Yav, if you don't mind saying, when were you a born again Christian and why did you turn away? My experience began almost 40 years ago; and, though there have been peaks and valleys, He keeps drawing me closer despite my inadequacies.

"Just out of curiosity how does creationism or ID explain the lack of any evidence in the fossil record that shows that all of the animals that ever lived, lived at the same time."

Dog, they don't. The sect of creationism that believes the earth is only 6000 years old says that god put the fossils in their specific places to make it look like the earth was older. So according to them, god wants us to believe evolution is true to "test" our faith. What a trickster, that god.

"Essentially, science is making its best guess based upon the information available."

Ding, ding, we have a winner. I'm off to have some lunch. I'll be back later to see how this discussion has "evolved".

Jeff, yes many scientists and even biologists think there is a God that set it all into motion, many of them are even Christian.

DOGMAN

Black moths/light moths. that seems like micro to me. So does thin/thick beaks. That comparison would be like saying black people and white people are different speciis, but that is not the case. we are all in the speciis of man in the genus of animal. Differences in physical characteristics w/in a speciis do not make different speciis. I don't really know what I'm pointing out. It's just an observation.

The difference between species that are morphologically close is usually an inability to breed. Among those that can interbreed they often produce infertile offspring. Funny thing you get the same result from inbreeding.

DOGMAN

My genus is Homo not "animal."

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I've never been asked if I believe in God during a job interview. Nor have I ever been asked about my religion. Maybe Paleocon makes it a habit of sharing that irrelevant information to interviewers but I would guess that 99.999% of ordinary people wouldn't.

There's probably some legal issues involved for the employers as well, surrounding that kind of personal question that is.

"Dog, they don't. The sect of creationism that believes the earth is only 6000 years old says that god put the fossils in their specific places to make it look like the earth was older. So according to them, god wants us to believe evolution is true to "test" our faith. What a trickster, that god."

Thats just as made up and unrelated to the Bible as they claim evolution is. Maybe more so.

DOGMAN

Dontardo, MacV - my mistake.

Yes on the BAC. Long story. I read that as BCB. So much for reading while on a work call. I don't multitask like I used to. :) MacV also asked.

So, yes, I was born again, and now I'm an atheist. Summing up that transition and the reasons is not nearly as concise as the story of my being born again. It is a personal choice, and it was bittersweet at the time. The easiest way I can say it is that when my premise met conflicts that were cumulatively too big to reconcile, I had to reexamine my premise. I found conflicts in my faith and reality and I wasn't satisfied with the answers. I was no longer willing to accept "god's will." as the answer to everything.

There are plenty of people that have gone this route - this is not unusual.

"I was no longer willing to accept "god's will." as the answer to everything."

Better be careful YAV. They might try to ship you off to one of the "camps" to get you back in the cult, I mean fold.

Don,

They already did, though no camps {grin}. That was years ago. BTW, some were openly hateful and I even received chastisement in front of people in open public. Some were wonderful and sincere. It was in and of itself, an eye opening experience.

I found out afterwards that I was the only person every to withdraw from the Church, and it had to be voted on by the membership. There were prayer vigils and visits to my house.

"There were prayer vigils and visits to my house."

YAV, hopefully they finally got the message. I've found that there are two kinds of BACs, fitting your descriptions above. I was fortunate enough to have not been forced totally into religion by my folks, who sometimes went to church but never really seriously. I was baptised as a youth, but had dismissed the supernatural aspects of religion before I finished high school.

I will respond to particulars later...


XO Horace

"I found out afterwards that I was the only person every to withdraw from the Church, and it had to be voted on by the membership. There were prayer vigils and visits to my house.

Posted by yav at 2005-12-07 02:01 PM | Reply"

Now you've gotten me curiosity stirred. What church? I can't conceive of a church voting to reject a person willingly withdrawing. Praying for the person, counseling the person...yes; but, rejecting their withdrawal? Wouldn't they take the hint when you never show up?

Don,

Interesting observation - I never analyzed it or qualified people that way. I wasn't raised in a religious environment at all. My conversation to evangelical fundamentalism was at the same time as your transition out.

MacV,

I am enjoying your posts and interest. Thank you. This is one of those times when I would enjoy a real conversation rather than a public posting. Let me also say that in no way would I ever seek to discourage you from your faith. I only run into issues when someone seeks to codify a religious view sans reasonable benefit. Feel free to call me on that anytime I stray.

A very large Southern Baptist congregation to answer your question. In my mind, I was being honest and couldn't be a hypocrite, so I withdrew rather than fade away.

"Here is a guy central to ID."

Wow, 37 pages (double spaced) of BS to counter several hundred years of study regarding evolution. I know I'm convinced.

By the way, Horace, your philosophical argument regarding the rigidity of scientific thinking is interesting, but does nothing to counter established evolutionary theory. Until you can provide some concrete examples of evidence that cannot be verified or corrected via scientific method and explained in the greater context of evolution, then your philosophical approach is just a dead end.

The ID movement concedes change evolution, but says that it was guided by a designer, or a designer poofed certain things into existence.

Everything past concedes evolution is moot, becasue the reason why is a matter of faith, it is the how that is science.

Don'Tardo -- (sounds like a friend of Don Quixote's doesn't it?)I will have to wait a few hours to respond. But why does everyone demand to know that, if Evolution is wrong, what is the real story? If I am as brainless as all the Evo's in here claim , I'd be the last to ask -- right?

Let me give an example of why that question is misguided, anyways. If your leg was on fire would you demand to know who set it before you put it out? Of course not.

Likewise, just because I may not have all the answers to the question -- my points might still utterly disprove your beliefs -- correct?

H

But who is Don Quixote?

I know, patronizing again. Sorry. Mean it.

lol

"If your leg was on fire would you demand to know who set it before you put it out? Of course not."

But would I ask myself the question before I put it out? Probably yes. The real search for the culprit would begin after the fire was sufficiently extinguished. I'm not sure how that metaphor is relevant anyway, but I'll assume that it has some philosophical significance.

"my points might still utterly disprove your beliefs -- correct?"

Given that science only provides a probability, then technically this might be the case. I would put the odds somewhere between slim and none. Your points represent only smaller pieces of the bigger picture. As such, removing these pieces, as you seem bent only doing, doesn't destroy the larger picture, it merely means that someone needs to provide a piece to you that satisfies your requirements as to its validity. If you somehow managed to scientifically eliminate all evidence supporting evolution, then I would have to agree with you that it did not exist. Better get to work, at 100 articles a month you've got a lot of reading and refuting to do.

Yav, I'm sure you know Don, being the quixotic type.

So if you mean to be patronizing, you ought to consider more carefully expending your energies. It does nothing but make me laugh at your hubris. In addition it makes you look pompous and unable to take a shot above the belt.

But to each their own!

Horace

Oops, you meant you really were S-O-R-R-Y. My Bad.

These days I can never understand the difference between PostModern Irony & sincerity.

Horace

Ps, perhaps I will go back to basics with Kierkegaard...

Actually Don, and sorry for my misreading a humble apology -- the fire question had to do with a fascination I have.

I have always been a keen observer of the 'Debunker.' James Rand & that sort. I love someone who is willing to go against the grain and think outside of the box, and take on every man, woman and child, if that be necessary. In fact, quite often when Paradigms have shifted it started with a lone voice of dissent.

It seems to me that whether Evolution is invalid, in and of itself is a very important question. What would take its place is only important after the first has happened.

I would have loved to live at a time of breathtaking scientific discoveries. To me that would be thrilling.

Horace

By the way, I might get some of those articles you mention to read. Why not?

H

Existentialism might be the best place to find the meaning to my post :)

Humor is appreciated, as is understanding it even when it isn't immediately apparent.

back to work for a while. C-ya!

Oh, and Horace - best to you, sincerely and honestly.

Here's some relevent scientifc laws, straight from one of my favorites, Skeptic.

Rennie's Law of Credibility:
Scientists don't always know best about matters of science--but they're more likely to be right than the critics who make that argument.

2nd Corollary to the Law of Credibility:
Any iconoclast with a scientifically unorthodox view who reminds you that Galileo was persecuted too ... ain't Galileo.

Sapolsky's Three Laws for Doing Science:

Sapolsky's First Law:
Think logically, but orthogonally.

Sapolsky's Second Law:
It's okay to think about nonsense, as long as you don't believe in it.

Sapolsky's Third Law:
Often, the biggest impediment to scientific progress is not what we don't know, but what we know.

Don
Fudd's First Law of Opposition:

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

"because people don't do that in a civilized society."

"ipso facto, we don't live one..."

"Well, I'm following your logic, but I think it's a little too general."
Posted by Hawk at 2005-12-07 10:00 AM | Reply

It was facetious. I was only trying to point out the vapidity of the man's statement. I should have expanded a bit...

Regarding the debate here, and it's refreshingly polite, I'm just wondering if anyone has considered the possibility that some lifeforms were planted on this planet at some time. I don't mean magically poofed into existence by a willful spiritual entity but really transported here from another planet, from another part of the universe.

I know it's nutty but, ya know, we're on our way to exploring Mars and eventually, maybe in 500 years, I dunno, but eventually, we'll progress to that point, too. I mean, fooling around with Mars's environment. There is no less evidence for this idea than for anything else.

I'm very rusty on this but I know I've read of old cultures with mythologies that support the idea. Maybe in science fiction books, but what the hey.

Bellaspapa, I politely refer you to Sapolsky's Second Law.

So we both agree with Plato -- we shall search for the Good and do it & Eschew the Evil.

Well, there we are -- back to where we started.

Horace

"A very large Southern Baptist congregation to answer your question. In my mind, I was being honest and couldn't be a hypocrite, so I withdrew rather than fade away.

Posted by yav at 2005-12-07 02:38 PM | Reply"

Yav,

Appreciate the reply. If you have instant messaging, send me a note. My Windows Messenger ID is MACV1972.

Bellas'Papa -- you are singing the Siren Song of Sir Fred Hoyle & his brilliant colleague Wickramshire who say that the odds against Evolution are so great, and other options so meagre that humankind must have been injected in somehow from outside, via asteroids, etc, even if starting from small origins.

horace

"A very large Southern Baptist congregation to answer your question. In my mind, I was being honest and couldn't be a hypocrite, so I withdrew rather than fade away.

Posted by yav at 2005-12-07 02:38 PM | Reply"

Interesting. I currently attend a Southern Baptist church; mainly because it is nearby and I haven't found THE place for me. Left the church I had been attending because they were going the seeker mega church route and I saw that as heading more and more toward a "Gospel-lite" as opposed to a Gospel light. I find the Southern Baptists are intriguing in that their doctrinal statements (nationally any way) still embrace Calvinism -- yet the message from the pulpit sounds as Arminian as one can get.

Another seemingly stupid question. Why did Humans, or Homo-whatever lose their hair? Or, did we ever really have hair like the apes? A naked ape makes no sense to me. Why in the world would one animal NEED to peel the skin off another species and wear it? It's totally bizzare and I haven't found an explanation anywhere for it.

The only seemingly reasonable explanation I've found is that, in hot climates, thick hair became redundant. But that's no reason to lose it. A coat of hair also protects the skin from the sun and can be part of the cooling process of the body as well. Camels have thick coats and so do African gorillas. There aren't any other totally naked animals out there. Elephants and Hippos, et al, have little hair, but a thick insulation of fat and thick skin.

Then there's a weird theory that individuals with "less" hair had fewer bugs on them and became somehow more attractive to mates and, ipso facto (I like that term, lol) through the magic of natural selection, having less hair became beneficial in the reproductive struggle. But as far as I can tell, the apes LIKE the bugs. They eat them. And they still have their hair...

This, to me, is a big gap in the theory of evolution. At least in the leap from Ape to Human part of the theory. I've asked the question on scientific discussion boards in the past and only gotten insubstantial, patronising answers. I don't think scientists have a solid theory.

Maybe the gap is between my ears but I'd like a solid, confident answer to the question.

From the same article on Hoyle is this...The evidence is that Hoyle had sent his paper to an American journal, where it was rejected.

Someone pointed out that the lack of ID publications proves it is fraudulent. To the contray! All it proves is the ideas are on the outside of the scientific academic mainstream at the present time.

All great scientific breakthroughs go through a period of fire & rain before becoming a commonplace.

Does this mean ID is a great breakthrough & bound to be accepted? No. Simply that it not being published upon is not as damning as it sounds. In a sense it is like asking why the 'opposition party' in the Saudi election didn't place in the 'official polls'!

Horace

Bellaspapa,

I think the bigger question is why do humans, primarily men, STILL lose their hair?

:o)

"Simply that it not being published upon is not as damning as it sounds."

Horace, in the scientific community, if you're doing reserach and not publishing it, you might as well be pounding sand. The goal of any scientist is to make his ideas public knowledge, and the best way to do that is via publishing. Why is ID not published? Because it is so flawed that it cannot withstand the peer review process, which makes it outside of the mainstream.

"All great scientific breakthroughs go through a period of fire & rain before becoming a commonplace."

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Some things are so obvious that they are immediately accepted after relatively little publication. Take gravity for example. Unless you prefer the Theory of Intelligent Falling (see www.theonion.com).

Bellas'Papa -- you are singing the Siren Song of Sir Fred Hoyle & his brilliant colleague Wickramshire ...

horace

Posted by horace at 2005-12-07 04:20 PM | Reply

Thank you for the info Horace. I'm not singing any songs really, I'm just not convinced by any of the talk so far. I'm looking for alternatives... just looking, not buying anything today... I'll wait till the after-Christmas sales to buy :-)

Are we still arguing about anything?

I guess not. I'm off to get my daughter from school. Be back tommorrow.

Why did Humans, or Homo-whatever lose their hair?"

BP, here's a link that may shed some light on that (or not)...
www.mnh.si.edu

Posted by dontardo at 2005-12-07 04:37 PM | Reply



Thx dontardo. Yeah, that's the basic theory as I've found it. And it's totally weak. It contradicts itself by claiming that thick hair protects the organism from heat but also makes it difficult for built-up heat to dissipate. Hair does not in anyway interfere with perspiration. In fact, the hair HOLDS the sweat, increasing the effectiveness of the cooling mechanism many-fold. You'll stay cooler when working outdoors in the sun wearing a sweaty t-shirt (ersatz fur) than being bare-chested. And sunburn is a helluva good incentive not to evolve into a hairless thingamajiggy. So, no, I can't accept the theory pauschal... sigh.

I've shifted my focus from the theory of evolution to the appearance of humans on the planet, which to me is a much more baffling subject.

Here's the crux of the article, if anyone's interested:


"Mammalian body hair acts as an insulator, allowing a constant temperature to be maintained. When the external temperatures fall, body hair helps trap heat. When environmental temperatures are higher than internal temperatures, body hair provides a filter for solar radiation, protecting the body's surface from direct exposure that would raise internal temperatures. However, in hot weather, the thick fur can make it difficult for excess body heat to be dissipated. In humans, exposed skin allows heat to escape easily from the body through sweat and evaporation. The cost of exposed skin is that the body has no way to trap escaping heat when the external temperature is lower than internal temperatures.

Although it is impossible to find evidence of exactly when functional hairlessness occurred in human evolution, it is possible to infer the timing of other thermoregulatory changes. Members of the genus Homo have modern body proportions (longer legs and shorter arms) whereas earlier hominins had more ape-like bodies. The taller and thinner hominins would have been able to diffuse heat more effectively in an open environment. Increasing aridity and the spread of open habitats would have placed a premium on relatively hairless, evaporative skin as a way of regulating body temperature."

Shylox, I just waded through your big posts. Unfortunately I took the time to answer some of your statements in the Friday Nooner, but you disappeared.

Your statements about the Nazi religion are a bit all over the place. You make things difficult by being vague over how you define Christianity, the Church, etc. Also, your referencing Arianism is a bit odd. Do you mean Arminianism? That would fit better with the context.

Arianism addresses the issue of the origin and nature of Christ, claiming He was created and is therefore not equal to God.

Arminianism is essentially anti-Calvinism. It focuses upon freewill and man's ability to accept God on his own without first being chosen (or 'elected') by God.

Now the Catholic Church is certainly Arminian, but not Arian.

My last point in this post is to really understand Hitler's religious aims, consider this: What was (arguably) Germany's greatest scholarly work? Luther's Bondage of the Will, which is perhaps the greatest exposition on the doctrine of predestination, i.e. Calvinism, the world has ever seen.

OK, what was Hitler's greatest work? Undoubtedly the movie Triumph of the Will. Here then we see Hitler's great theme, the overthrow of the Christian Protestant Calvinist worldview that said man was helpless to save himself. To be erected in its place was the Nazi idea of the Ubermansch, the overcoming 'superman' who creates a New Germany and takes over the world.

But in first doing this the loyal Teutonic German had to overthrow himself by tossing off the hated idea of being in bondage to God's will.

Horace

As to a few things thrown out in the Nooner that apply here:

Shy-lock, I am not sure if you will come back here. Maybe it doesn't matter so much.

But anyway, your point on the differences between the 4 Gospels showing that they were therefore false, or at least random is not a good one. Differences mean a greater chance that something is accurate in a court of law. Things that are falsified using the testimony of more than one in a conspiracy are invariably too much in agreement. Moreover, what would the point be of 4 Gospels verbatim? I fail to see how this would satisfy anyone, whether skeptics or the elect.

On another item, I do happen to agree with your analysis of Mary. This is the cult of Mariology which swept the Catholic Church the last 250 years. It is a carry over from earlier fertility cults based up the Asherim, Ashera, etc. This is a great point of contention between Protestants and Catholics.

Horace

2nd Timothy 3:7 Ever striving to learn, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth....

And that's all I've got to say about that...

If evolution is the defacto theory adopted by the "smart" people then how come it's been so hard to find the "Missing Link" between us and apes?

Why is this huge gap being noticed by this dumb creationist and seemingly over looked by the "smart" people?

Feeling Dumb Yet? Waiting for that random bolt of lighting to strike you? Nothing is random.

The theory of evolution is just another test!

One more thing....If we evolved from apes then it seems the way things are going humans will continue to evolve into pale hairless blobs with brians the size of compact cars capable of great thoughts, but bodies unable to act upon any of these awesome new ideas. Oh and don't give that crap about machines doing all the work, I've seen Terminator and The Matrix! OK I guess by then we'll all have the ability to move things with our mind, but really how much fun is that. No Thanks!

I for one welcome the evolution discussions. My beleifs are just that and I only need to beleive to justify my position. There are so many holes in the evolution theory that within minutes you can back one of these so called smart people into a corner where they must admit that most of the theory is based upon what is possible not proven facts.

By the way why so angry about any ideas that differ than yours? Are you afraid of something? I'm not!

Very funny "THREE". You should write for the Onion.

I bought all the anti-E & ID books I could find at B&N...

There's a sucker born every minute.
P.T. Barnum

Harace wrote: "Moreover, what would the point be of 4 Gospels verbatim? I fail to see how this would satisfy anyone, whether skeptics or the elect."

I think the contradictions in the bible only proove that it wasn't written by one God's hand. It was written by people, with all their flaws, and also with all their agendas. That doesn't invalidate the book(s) per se, but it does invalidate the idea that anyone need take it as written in stone, so to speak. It comes down to picking and choosing the portions that suit you, the parts you hold for true.

For example, we're told at one point we can eat everything that crosses our way, then we're told to be vegan, then we can eat anything but the meat of animal with cloven hooves. So... how does one extrapolate a strict definition "God's will" from this?

As far as I know, one of the basic tenets of Fundamentalism is the strict adherenece to a literal reading of the bible and a belief that it was written by "God" "Himself". No? But that seems impossible to me.

Bella, you contradict yourself. The Gospels either came from a single source and is consonant, albeit claimed through the four channels described in the Gospels. Or it is just a source written from different people that has no claim to a higher consistency or theme.

What many people claim after 'studying' the Bible (this is a code word for reading through it once like a novel) is that it contradicts itself. On the contrary, most 'contradictions' evaporate after truly studying them, ie actually spending time in trying to understand what the writer was saying and what else the Bible says on the topic.

Your example of the so called 'discrepency' between what types of animals can be eaten by Bible believers is a classic example.

Leviticus 11:4-31 gives a long list of unclean animals of which everyone is aware that includes swine.

After Christ comes, Peter has a vision recorded in Acts.

Peter's Vision: "About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 1He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Without giving the details of why the change occured, which is based upon the difference between being 'clean,' ie righteous between the Old & New Testaments -- I think you can see it is a false example of what you claim -- a Biblical contradiction.

I have more respect for a 'Fundamentalist' who actually knows the Bible than a critic who merely uses it to support his or her biases in an uninformed manner.

Horace

Yes Jay, like most Liberals you were undoubtedly born full of wisdom and knowledge.

For the rest of us its a lifelong commitment and process to learn about the outside world.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Thanks for taking the time to share your bias.

Horace

Does Shyguy answer posts?

Just curious if I should bother in the future...

H